Did the Founders want a weak central government?

[SpidermanTuba]

If you answered "YES", the please explain why they did not keep the Articles of Confederation, which was a form of government with weak central authority and most of the real power still resting with the states.

 

[Oddball]

A question which is truly ignorant of American history.

The Federalists (Adams, Hamilton, et al): No.

The Anti-federalists (Jefferson, Paine, etcetera): Yes.

 

[California Girl]

On a scale of 1 to 10..... how stupid can one poster be?

1 being damned smart (I'm thinking on a par with, say, Navy1960) and 10 being dumb as dirt and stupid as mud (It would be unkind to single out just one).


*NB: I miss Navy.... wish he'd get his ass back on the forum. Shit.... I should just email his ass and tell him that I miss him.

 

[QUENTIN]

Define what you mean by "weak" in this context.

Dude's breakdown is largely accurate in terms of who wanted more authority vs. less authority relative to the States, but how "weak" or "strong" any of it was is too subjective to answer in a vague poll.

 

[California Girl]

A question which is truly ignorant of American history.

The Federalists (Adams, Hamilton, et al): No.

The Anti-federalists (Jefferson, Paine, etcetera): Yes.

The OP appears to equate small with weak, or isn't smart enough to know the difference. Go figure. It's a dumbass question undeserving of a serious response.

 

[DiamondDave]

Limited and enumerated powers that were specifically granted along with the stipulation that those powers not granted to the fed are reserved for the states and individuals.... while not 'weak' the founders clearly sought to limit the powers of the fed... unlike what left wingers believe

 

[NYcarbineer]

Limited and enumerated powers that were specifically granted along with the stipulation that those powers not granted to the fed are reserved for the states and individuals.... while not 'weak' the founders clearly sought to limit the powers of the fed... unlike what left wingers believe

Yet ironically in the other thread you are arguing that the federal government has the power to infringe on or take away my right to travel, despite there being no such enumerated power in the Constitution.

 

[Baruch Menachem]

They wanted something strong enough to deal with outside threats, but not so strong as it would be a daily harassment to the average citizen.

Big issues back in 1789 were the British insistence that they could interfere with US shipping, the pirates off the African coast, bankrupt states threatening the security of the rest of the country.

Some things never change.

But they wanted internal freedom and external strength.

 

[NYcarbineer]

A question which is truly ignorant of American history.

The Federalists (Adams, Hamilton, et al): No.

The Anti-federalists (Jefferson, Paine, etcetera): Yes.

There's nothing ignorant in the question. Ignorance is your inability to answer it.

 

[NYcarbineer]

A question which is truly ignorant of American history.

The Federalists (Adams, Hamilton, et al): No.

The Anti-federalists (Jefferson, Paine, etcetera): Yes.

The OP appears to equate small with weak, or isn't smart enough to know the difference. Go figure. It's a dumbass question undeserving of a serious response.

Like you would know. jeezus christ. miss america strikes again.

 

[Meister]

History taught me a smaller federal government and stronger state government

 

[Dr.Traveler]

Weak?

No. They had the Articles of Confederation and could have stayed with that if they wanted a weak government. They met initially to fix the Articles because they knew that the Articles had serious flaws.

Dude makes a good point in this thread though. The Founders were not some homogeneous group think. They had differing opinions on almost any topic that came up during the day, so it isn't really possible to talk about the opinion of that group as a whole. That's part of the reason that the whole "Original Intent" agrument is typically bunk.

But one thing is clear: They knew the Articles, which provided a very weak central government, needed work.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Limited and enumerated powers that were specifically granted along with the stipulation that those powers not granted to the fed are reserved for the states and individuals.... while not 'weak' the founders clearly sought to limit the powers of the fed... unlike what left wingers believe

Having a central government with limited power merely makes the system federal.

 

[NYcarbineer]

On a scale of 1 to 10..... how stupid can one poster be?

"Namecalling is the sign of a lost argument." California Girl 10/16/09

lol, sometimes it's just too easy around here. Where do the intelligent rightwingers post?

 

[Dr.Traveler]

On a scale of 1 to 10..... how stupid can one poster be?

"Namecalling is the sign of a lost argument." California Girl 10/16/09

lol, sometimes it's just too easy around here. Where do the intelligent rightwingers post?

Can you provide the link to that quote. It might be useful in a few other threads.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Weak?

No. They had the Articles of Confederation and could have stayed with that if they wanted a weak government. They met initially to fix the Articles because they knew that the Articles had serious flaws.

Dude makes a good point in this thread though. The Founders were not some homogeneous group think. They had differing opinions on almost any topic that came up during the day, so it isn't really possible to talk about the opinion of that group as a whole. That's part of the reason that the whole "Original Intent" agrument is typically bunk.

But one thing is clear: They knew the Articles, which provided a very weak central government, needed work.

I think the question is designed to address the very often heard assertion from certain circles that the founders never intended our federal government to have this much power, which translates into asserting that they intended the federal government to be weak. Which even goes as far as to get serious arguments, nowadays, from many, that the states have the right to secede.

 

[Meister]

Does our federal government need to be so strong that it can tell and individual how to live his/her life? This is what is beginning to happen with healthcare, and now our salt intake?
Where will this stop?

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Does our federal government need to be so strong that it can tell and individual how to live his/her life? This is what is beginning to happen with healthcare, and now our salt intake?
Where will this stop?

How is the government telling me how to live my life with the health care bill?

 

[NYcarbineer]

On a scale of 1 to 10..... how stupid can one poster be?

"Namecalling is the sign of a lost argument." California Girl 10/16/09

lol, sometimes it's just too easy around here. Where do the intelligent rightwingers post?

Can you provide the link to that quote. It might be useful in a few other threads.

Here. 2 for the price of one actually, if you read through the quotes.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/1622775-post110.html

 

[Meister]

Does our federal government need to be so strong that it can tell and individual how to live his/her life? This is what is beginning to happen with healthcare, and now our salt intake?
Where will this stop?

How is the government telling me how to live my life with the health care bill?

It's telling you that you are going to have healthcare one way or another.....a year ago it wasn't.....sheesh